Gun owners - Have you apologised for a spree killing recently?

Perhaps not. However, it does (in a deeper sense) equate a gun owner with extremist fanatical Muslim killers.

You're wrong there. It is equating a law-abiding gun owner with a peaceful Muslim.

Which, conversely, means that those gun owners that do not stand on the rooftops and openly rail against the psychos killing with guns are secretly in
favor of it too. You cannot have one without the other. By dividing a group, as the OP did, you must have at a minimum two sides (which was clear in
the OP was 2 sides).

No NO NO! The satire is that we don't expect gun owners to stand on the rooftops and openly rail against the psychos to prove that they aren't
secretly in favor of their killings. When was the last time you saw anyone seriously posting that on ATS? Nobody demands that. The point is, we should
also not be accusing peaceful Muslims of secretly being in favor of extremist actions just because they aren't screaming on the rooftops.

The reason why this is a good analogy (in my opinion) is because most of the people who are making these types of accusations against the peaceful
Muslims are the same people who value their guns so much. Nef was using this to point out the hypocrisy he knew was going to be coming forth with all
the outrage. And he was right on.

We can replace the 'gun owner' with 'person of muslim faith' and it would prove the point of this thread!
This is what we are seeing in all the threads about how all of the muslims that are not doing anything are either to blame or are part of the grand
scheme.

Awesome thread

Wait the OP is right... I'm a gun owner...did my military stuff and along with my conviction that I would kill anyone coming into my house to do me
or my family harm, in a second, makes me a killer too.

All gun owners would do the same as me or they would not be gun owners and so that makes all gun owners killers, or future killers...

Everyone apparently knows the secret of gun owners now.
We live our lives according to the Messenger of Gun. The holy book of gun is the Narok.
In the the Narok, it tells us to kill those who do not believe and that we can take their property (wives and children).
There are some gun owners that do not take the writings in the Narok seriously and they sit quietly on the sidelines while we kill non gunners.

Perhaps not. However, it does (in a deeper sense) equate a gun owner with extremist fanatical Muslim killers.

You're wrong there. It is equating a law-abiding gun owner with a peaceful Muslim.

Which, conversely, means that those gun owners that do not stand on the rooftops and openly rail against the psychos killing with guns are secretly in
favor of it too. You cannot have one without the other. By dividing a group, as the OP did, you must have at a minimum two sides (which was clear in
the OP was 2 sides).

...

The reason why this is a good analogy (in my opinion) is because most of the people who are making these types of accusations against the peaceful
Muslims are the same people who value their guns so much. Nef was using this to point out the hypocrisy he knew was going to be coming forth with all
the outrage. And he was right on.

Is that so? That ""most" of the gun owners, most? Please provide your statistics on that the most of the gun owner members of ATs think that. I am
one of those members, and I do not think of that, never said it either. So by your evidence-less logic, I am in the minority here. Please provide your
stats that allowed you (and the OP according to you) to come to that conclusion. Without that data, aren't you and the OP making the same broad
generalizations your satire is trying to point out here? It sure sounds rather hypocritical to me....but then I might be in the minority again.

originally posted by: butcherguy
Everyone apparently knows the secret of gun owners now.
We live our lives according to the Messenger of Gun. The holy book of gun is the Narok.
In the the Narok, it tells us to kill those who do not believe and that we can take their property (wives and children).
There are some gun owners that do not take the writings in the Narok seriously and they sit quietly on the sidelines while we kill non gunners.

I pray to the good book of The Official Gun Digest Book of Guns & Prices 2015 and my temple is Bud's gun shop, I'm with you brother... hehe

It equates Gun owners to regular Muslims & people like Adam Lanza to the extremists...
Neither of which should be asked to apologise...

That is the analogy, not the other way round.

Trust me, "I get it". But, conversely does it mot imply that if a gun owner does not scream from the rooftops or protest in the streets against those
types, they are secretly agreeing to those actions (similar to what is being observed about moderate believers in Islam). I understand the satire, and
the joke. But as many Muslim apologists here are clearly stating that to post cartoons depicting the Prophet is a sure way to taunt the extremists, is
disrespectful, and should not be done, isn't the OP in essence doing the same here to gun owners? Why is that not considered disrespectful etc...

Frankly, I don't think this particular satire is at all funny. But I will defend to the death the OP's right of free speech to post it and not try to
suppress it or threaten to kill them either. Unlike, however, the current extremist Muslim fanatics that regularly threaten anyone (including other
Muslims) that is not at their level of "belief".

ETA: The entire idea of the protection of free speech is to protect the speech you do not like. It is not intended to protect only that in which you
agree, but it is to protect the expression of differing ideas that may not be popular.

Based on the reactions of the posters who are gun advocates who DID get the point of the thread, I can see that the OP did his job quite well.

And what is the percentage of those to the entire ATS membership that are also gun owners? Is it "most" as you stated, or is it a small minority? I
don't know, do you? And if you do not, then I think you need to refrain from making any of the percentage statements you have made.

I don't understand how such a bad OP with includes about every possible ways to troll people with ridiculous straw man arguments actually got so many
"likes". I don't even understand how people that are against guns could support such statements that make absolutely no sense.

If I was just as stupid I would apologize for having such a degenerate member of the same forum that I belong to speak out such ignorance and
shallowness. But I won't since I am a smart person that doesn't get manipulated in your rhetoric BS.

There is one thing that was most responsible for the landslide losses we just saw. That one thing is gun grabbing.

You sir live in a land completely inundated with guns. Any little gangbanger who wants a machine gun can have one delivered to their door with no
checks whatsoever. I'll give an example below of what we call a JB weld special. They get this nickname because all you need is a couple tubes of JB
weld to build a Sub Machine Gun.

When the 1986 Machine Gun bans and the bans under Clinton took place the people who were importing legal surplus rifles could no longer import the
same. The result is that they cut the guns (Demilled) and shipped in ten times as many. It was a well intentioned notion but the result is that more
parts kits exist in this country than functional guns.

This sir ensures we will always have the best armed criminals on the planet, and well sir I will not lay down arms.

What exactly would you hope to see here? Disarm all legal gun owners? Legislation does nothing to limit the activity of criminals! Assembling a JB
weld special or other parts kit into a machine gun is already highly illegal and carries a minimum of ten years etc..

Please explain what you would do here? Your deluded if you think you can disarm America! The only real result would be to ensure only criminals had
access to the millions and millions of guns in America!

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.

That is talking about two things there the militia, and the rights of the people to keep, and bear arms WITHOUT limitation.

That is what that shall not infringed part means there.

Then there is the simple fact that society already has a law. Lot's of them in fact that says x person can't go around harming or shooting Y
person.

So demagoguing a THING when it's already taken care of is ludicrous.

But wait that's not all.

Moving on down the list of the BILL of RIGHTS.

The 4th Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The rights of the people to be SECURE in their persons,papers, and EFFECTS, against unreasonable search and seizures.

Well because of what someone ELSE has done. Without DUE PROCESS. I and ever other gun owner have to submit to the state, and IF DEEMED worthy I might
be allowed to buy one.

Epic violation.

Moving on to the 5th.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject
for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.

NO PERSON shall be held to answer for a capitol or otherwise infamous crime.

That means I, and ever other gun owner can NOT be held accountable WITHOUT and indictment in a court of LAW.

Moving on to the 6th amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense.

Where is us gun owners day in the courts of LAW ?

Not a single one of us have ever had one, and our 'crime' proven.

7th amendment:

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact
tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Guns,Guns licenses,permits, and tax stamps all cost a hell of a lot more than 20 bucks.

Denied our day in court YET AGAIN.

9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The enumeration in the constitution of rights were clearly spelled out.

The powers granted to the state can not be misinterpreted, and they CLEARLY have to DENY. To DISPARAGE other rights retained by the people.

ALL GUN CONTROL LAWS DENY, AND DISPARAGE ALMOST THE ENTIRE BILL OF RIGHTS!

And for WHAT ?

The ACTION that society already has LAWS against.

And lastly the 10th.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people.

Gun ownership is not prohibited in this country. The states, and the feds, and the antigun crowd seems to have forgotten this.

So apologized for WHAT ?

The anti gun crowd has a hell of a lot to apologize for on the other hand for trying to make people accountable for ACTIONS MOST NEVER DO.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.